Americans have a history of selecting presidents for their most superficial attributes. We have selected war heroes and legacies, a peanut farmer and a drinking buddy. Reagan was the great communicator; Clinton felt your pain; Bush was a compassionate conservative. McCain is a maverick POW; Obama is a hope machine.
But the president is not a figurehead whose essence can fit in a crossword puzzle. We need a president who is mentally equipped to unpack complex problems and offer pragmatic solutions. We need a president who knows how to boldly and efficiently manage ideas, people and bureaucracy. We need a short big-city mayor who celebrates Yom Kippur. We need Michael Bloomberg.
During the primary season, rumors materialized that Bloomberg was going to invest $1 billion of his personal bankroll in an independent campaign for the presidency. Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, founded and built the financial information empire that bears his name. He is renowned for his effective management and innovative leadership, once summarized his strategy as “recognize what you don’t know; find people who do; and study hard.”
A Bloomberg presidency would likely focus on stabilizing the economy, reducing global carbon emissions and restoring America’s international credibility. But what makes Bloomberg more equipped to pursue these ends than McCain or Obama?
Bloomberg’s unique advantages are his independence and leadership credentials. Any race between the two American political parties risks devolving into a war centered on culture and class. Governor Hockey Mom and her fellow GOPers have argued that we need a leader who is intimately familiar with small town values. Senator Hope serenades the middle class in his attempt to justify protectionism. The debates are often recycled and frivolous. Bloomberg would shift the focus to reestablishing a strong economic foundation upon which American families can independently build.
As an independent, Bloomberg would neither need to adhere to a party dogma nor shore up a base constituency. Partisanship stands in the way of consensus-building. Pandering stands in the way of principle. Bloomberg’s wealthy independence represents a new kind of politics; it requires no fundraisers, no ideological obligation.
Though New Yorkers have reservations about abolishing term-limits to allow Mayor Bloomberg to continue his reign without inhibition, describing it as a benevolent dictatorship, a Bloomberg presidency would not be one. In fact, since no members of Congress would feel obliged to support him (and his advisers would be bipartisan), there would be significantly more checks on his actions. His proposals–this is, his ideas rather than his party–would elicit unbridled criticism from both parties, whereas party members in the House and Senate habitually feel obliged to support proposals from a president of the same party. With Bloomberg, the spheres of Congress would not feel bound to support or oppose any presidential initiative; rather, Congress would afford the initiative criticism unfettered by partisanship.
Bloomberg has the experience of running a multibillion dollar financial business. He understands international and domestic financial systems. He has led the largest city in the United States for the past seven years. His commitment to civil liberties and an equality of opportunity is coupled with a desire for efficiency.
And his accomplishments as mayor are not few and far between. In New York, Bloomberg helped lead the economy out of its post-9/11 doldrums and led a global campaign to stanch the flow of illegal arms. He promoted a ban on smoking in public places and restaurants and pushed for a carbon tax on cars entering New York City. He has also pushed for an education plan that stresses charter schools and an anti-poverty campaign that has attempted to increase the amount of public housing.
While some have criticized his egoism, others focus on Bloomberg’s benignity and pragmatism. His astoundingly high approval ratings will likely allow him to reform the New York City statute on term limits and continue serving as mayor until the next presidential election.
Bloomberg is not the messiah; his presidency will not bring an end to partisan politics. However, Bloomberg’s pragmatic approach to global cooperation is likely to restore America’s ability to exert peaceful power abroad. His economic acumen, too, is particularly important today as the world undergoes the first global crisis of the 21st century.
His candidacy would mean more electoral options and a more vibrant democratic fabric. It would extend the political debate beyond historical partisan issues in order to address the true purpose of the presidency. The novelty of Bloomberg’s independent approach could inspire a new faith in those who have become so disenchanted by partisan politics. He can appeal to voters looking for a more efficient, less divided government. If nothing else, a Bloomberg candidacy would challenge historical political institutions and reshape our political discussions. Wait until 2012.